Druids

[Voneth]

I'm doing double duty on my druid, he's Ss'ssren, an Arcanis Lizardman who is named T'oc.

He's played mostly as a nature lover, prefering to sleep outside and not bothered by the rain. He really doesn't waste his time trying to teach the humans the "benefits" of living in nature. He spends more time trying to stay out of the way of Gods that seem to use humans as puppets for their own agendas.

This has changed lately. A spoiled brat begged T'oc's human knight friend to be squired to him. The human refused. So T'oc mentioned that he was given a knightship and would take the brat (a new PC rogue) on. At 14th Level, I figure I can afford to let my druid have a sense of humor.

 

[Theuderic]

i usually use this type of druid as well but i just got to thinking more closely about druids and i started to realize that the key word you used in your post was "destroying"

joe b.

I was quoting Mr. Gygax, word for word. If you wish to learn more about how the druids felt about these mattere, I suggest asking him on his Questions thread here at En World. Or, you might want to read a book on the druids. I'm not sure HOW close the original Greyhawk or D&D druids are to the actual druids of the pre Roman conquest, but it's worth a shot.

 

[Sulimo]

I was quoting Mr. Gygax, word for word. If you wish to learn more about how the druids felt about these mattere, I suggest asking him on his Questions thread here at En World. Or, you might want to read a book on the druids. I'm not sure HOW close the original Greyhawk or D&D druids are to the actual druids of the pre Roman conquest, but it's worth a shot.

Not at all I'd say. Its probably more like various bits of folklore and the later recreation (19th C).

Everything we know about 'real' druids comes via the writings of Romans which is hardly unbiased.

 

[Nightfall]

I personally like druids that between this world and the next. Some times seen as religious leaders, other times emissaries for natural order. And even more so, some thing not quite as human/mortal as some might believe them to be. Wielders of great powers, both natural and unnatural. But that's just me.

 

[jgbrowning]

thanks for all the responses.. i was going to post another question about druids on the rules forum but i might as well ask it here.

i was looking for druid alignments and i've always said NG, N, NE were acceptable, but it didn't seem too specific... are LN and CN acceptable as well? hrm... thanks 'gain.

joe b.

 

[Nightfall]

Yes. Any neutral alignment. Thus NG, NE, N, LN, CN are all acceptable alignment for druids.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I'm a bit of a late-comer, but I'd like to address an issue from earlier. I'll get to alignments in a moment...

is cuttin down a forest (nature) to replace it with crops (nature) a bad thing to a druid?

Cultivated areas are NOT a viable ecosystem, therefore they are NOT part of nature in the traditional sense. So destroying a forest(nature) to plant crops(not nature) would be a bad thing to a D&D druid (and probably to a "real" one as well, to a point).

I'm having a hard time trying to rectify a modern concept of environmentalism with a medieval/ancient world. Most medieval/ancient worlds didnt have the pressing concerns that we have, because they didnt' have the vast population nor the technology to for vast actions.

Modern environmentalism has nothing to do with druids. As far as I've been able to piece together from a LOT of reading on the subject, Druids, like most Native Americans, were aware of the symbiotic relationships going on all around them. They showed respect for the animals and plants that were used to sustain human life. Also like Native Americans, the Celts had a low-impact lifestyle until Christianity arrived. Emphasis on low-yield crops, gathering, and hunting. Often, mixed crops were planted in the same area. This helps prevent soil depletion, though I doubt the Celts knew that, per se. They had significantly less cultivation in general than city-bound civilizations. At any rate, large scale agriculture is only necessary once you start to encourage clustering of people into large populations. The Celts did not. They tended to be spread out over large areas, as was necessary for their low-impact lifestyle.

Ultimately, my impression is that druids would encourage small communities, small population, and sustainable, small-scale agriculture. Really, they were protectors of the Celtic people and way of life, not the protectors of nature they were made out to be. Of course, unlike the people who did the writing (Romans & Christians), they understood that protecting nature was part of protecting their way of life. And since nature was the abode of "barbarians" and"pagans", labeling the druids as such was convenient.

For game flavor reasons, "protector of nature" is probably better than "holy man of the Celtic people" though.

If you accept the D&D assertion that nature is Neutral by default, then I can't argue with Nightfall. Those are the "acceptable" alignments.

Personally, I always felt that druids were definitively Good, as they give of themselves to protect a lifestyle (which benefits their people) and nature (which ultimately benefits all creatures). An evil druid is a contradiction in terms, IMO. I always thought of them as Pragmatic Good. They take the long view of protecting the support system for life. Their goal is safeguarding all life, and they are Natural Selection in action, culling the weak and aberrant from nature, and reigning in those who would do lasting harm to the ecosystem (whether they fully understand the concept of an "ecosystem" or not).

 

[Theuderic]

This is probably why only neutral or "true neutral" was the only alignment that druids were allowed in original D&D. I think it makes sense when you figure that a druid will side with good or evil depending on what side is upsetting the balance the most. I think that these decisions would probably only be in the hands of the higher ranking druids. I t's fascinating to me though. The keepers of the balance if you will.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

This is probably why only neutral or "true neutral" was the only alignment that druids were allowed in original D&D. I think it makes sense when you figure that a druid will side with good or evil depending on what side is upsetting the balance the most. I think that these decisions would probably only be in the hands of the higher ranking druids. I t's fascinating to me though. The keepers of the balance if you will.

Perhaps, but it doesn't make any sense. If I were on either side, and the druids had a propensity for switching sides at the drop of a hat, they would become enemy #1. At least I know where my opposite stands. Guys who jump from ally to ally as part of maintaining "balance" would be on EVERYBODY'S hit list.

And people claim paladins are dumb...

 

[Theuderic]

Actually it makes perfect sense. If good and evil have nothing to do with it, then their only interest is in preserving the natural order. The higher up druids would give the lower druids instructions and orders maybe. They worship nature. The mantaining of the existince of everything if law should gain too much or chaos, then the world will be sterile or a seething mass of protoplasm.